- cross-posted to:
- tech@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- tech@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
Wow :
“We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing.”
It’s insane. They could be fined even after entirely leaving the country ?
Well technically, yeah
Practically: good luck getting that money.
On the other side, does the UK now require age of for every website out there, including the millions of semi amateur porn sites?
Because; good luck with that too, that ain’t never going to happen
Ignore for a second the law in question. Suppose Temu started importing harmful goods into your country in the knowledge that they were going to poison kids. (This doesn’t seem too much of a stretch…) Should it be OK for Temu to just say, “OK, we’ll just stop importing to the UK then”? Shouldn’t they face the consequences for breaking the law?
I think this take is motivated by disagreement with the law in question (although it’s not actually clear exactly what they’re alleged to have done - the ICO released a statement saying it relates to an investigation from March, so before the age verification requirement).
If it’s like GDPR, it applies to the citizens currently residing in the country, the location of the company or servers do not matter. Now if Imgur doesn’t have anyone there, no business happening and the website is already blocked, I don’t think they have much leverage.
What I’m understanding is imgur could get fine even if they dont offer their service anymore in the UK.
They could go back to just after the law passed and tell them “hey you were infringing on this extremely disrupting law that would completely change your business in the UK so pay up”.
I mean if a business just decides to not serve UK customer they should leave them alone… Especially such a complex law for something like Imgur…
Why sure but, how could they force Imgur to pay up?
The law was announced a long time before it came into effect, so companies that didn’t do anything to become compliant in advance were playing chicken in the hope that it’d be repealed before they ever had to obey it.
How would they enforce that fine even if they decided to give one? Unless imgur banks in the UK i think they’d just tell the UK to pound sand.
The title is a little bit misleading, it’s mostly about Imgur not adding the age checking that the UK’s infamously disliked new law requires on possibly mature content.
Age verification is a notoriously difficult problem to solve in a privacy-respecting way, and Imgur is literally about unobtrusive image embeds so I doubt they could even make this work.
The title is completely in line with the known facts. This is the ICO statement which does not mention anything about age checking.
There has been widespread speculation that this is related to age-verification but so far I’ve seen no evidence of this, and the fact that the investigation started in March makes it seem unlikely.
How long until parliament decides to push the undo button on this stupid law?
When it hurts them or their paymasters economically.
Can’t happen soon enough. However this is actually about control so any collateral damage is irrelevant
The only way this law stands is if they’re being paid more to keep it than… oh shit.
Yeah, I just uninstalled the app. I barely went on it anyway, as I’d be a bit apprehensive about what thirsty content was currently trending.
